4.

Overview of design methodologies

1. Confusion regarding number of different methods available
2. Design will depend on availability of data and knowledge of
failure mechanisms
3. As understanding of rock mass decreases, design may shift
from structural analysis to classifications systems to simple
empirical design rules

4. Designs using classification systems to be treated with

caution, however
4.1 Design methodologies for tendons

Structural / Mechanistic Analyses

• Key block analysis Preferred method
• Containment of unstable peripheral rock mass
• Design of a reinforced rock mass structure

Rock Mass Classification Systems Increased understanding

• RMR, Q of rock mass behaviour
• Rockwall Condition Factor (RCF)

Empirical Design Rules

4.2 Empirical Design Rules
• Two simple empirical rules occasionally used in South Africa
1. Length of tendon = 0.5 x span of excavation
2. Spacing of tendon = 0.5 x length of tendon
• US Corps of Engineers
Parameter Empirical Rule
Minimum length L Greatest of:
a) 2 x bolt spacing
b) 3 x thickness of critical and potentially unstable rock blocks
c) For elements above the springline*
spans < 6 m: 0.5 x span
spans between 6 m and 18 m: interpolate 3 - 4.5 m
spans between 18 m and 30 m: 0.25 x span
d) For elements below the springline*
height < 18 m: as c) above
height > 18 m: 0.2 x height

Max. spacing s Least of:

a) 0.5 x bolt length
b) 1.5 x width of critical and potentially unstable blocks
c) 2.0 m (greater spacing difficult to attach fabric support)

Minimum spacing s 0.9 – 1.2 m

Minimum average Greatest of:

pressure (support a) Above springline
resistance) pressure = vertical rock load of 0.2 x span OR 40kN/m2
b) Below springline
pressure = vertical rock load of 0.1 x height OR 40kN/m2
c) Intersections: 2 x pressure determined above
4.3 Rock Mass Classification Systems
• The Q design chart commonly used
• Length of bolts only function of relative size of excavation
• Spacing of bolts and and type of fabric support depends on Q rating

Grimstad and
Barton (1993)
Rock Mass Classification Systems

• Excavation Support Ratio (ESR) given by

Exercise 4.1: Design support for a crusher station

A pump station with a span of 15 m is to be excavated in argillaceous

quartzite. The rock mass quality in this area is poor and a survey indicated
that Q = 3. Give an indication of the type of support, the bolt spacing and
the bolt length by using the design chart of Grimstad and Barton (1993).
4.4 Support design using RCF
• Rockwall condition factor (RCF) is a measure commonly used in deep
South African mines to design tunnel support

RCF 
3 1   3 
F c

• 1 and 3 is the “subsiduary” principal stresses in the plane of the excavation

cross section
• c is the uniaxial compressive strength
• F is a factor to downgrade c

RCF < 0.7 : Good conditions

0.7 < RCF < 1.4 Average conditions
RCF > 1.4 Poor ground conditions
Support design using RCF

Recommended support for RCF < 0.7

Case Primary support Secondary support
(Typical requirements) (Typical requirements
Static stress ‘Spot’ support where necessary (Split ‘Spot’ support where necessary (rock
conditions Sets, rock studs, etc.) studs, etc.)
Stress changes ‘Spot’ support where necessary (Split Fully grouted tendons > 1.5 m in length,
anticipated Sets, rock studs, etc.) installed on basic 2 m pattern. Support
2
resistance: 30 - 50 kN/m . Rope lacing
(sidewalls only)
Seismic activity Split Sets or tendons > 1.2 m in length, Fully grouted (pref. yield) tendons > 1.5 m
anticipated installed as close to face as possible, on in length, installed on basic 2 m pattern.
2
basic 2 m or 1.5 m pattern. Support Support resistance: 50 kN/m . Mesh and
2
resistance: 30 - 50 kN/m . lace (hangingwall and sidewalls)
Support design using RCF

Recommended support for 0.7 < RCF < 1.4

Case Primary support Secondary support

(Typical requirements) (Typical requirements
Static stress Rock studs or tendons > 1.5 m in length, Steel strapping or rope lacing integrated
conditions installed as close to face as possible on with primary support tendons; or gunite.
basic 2 m pattern. Support resistance: 30
2
- 50 kN/m .
Stress changes Fully grouted tendons or steel ropes > 1.8 Rope lacing and wire mesh integrated
anticipated m in length, installed as close to face as with primary support tendons.
possible, on basic 2 m or 1.5 m pattern.
2
Support resistance: 40 - 60 kN/m .
Seismic activity Fully grouted (pref. yield) tendons or steel Rope lacing and wire mesh integrated
anticipated ropes > 1.8 m in length, installed as close with primary support tendons, plus
to face as possible, on 1.5 m or double 2 optional gunite.
m pattern. Support resistance: 80 - 110
2
kN/m .
Support design using RCF
Recommended support for RCF > 1.4
Case Primary support
(Typical requirements)
Static stress (If necessary) gunite to face, then fully
conditions grouted tendons or steel ropes, length >
1.8 m on basic 1.5 m pattern, as close to
face as possible. Support resistance: 80 -
2
110 kN/m .
Stress changes (If necessary) gunite to face, then fully
anticipated grouted steel ropes or yielding tendons,
length > 1.8 m on basic 1 m or double 2 m
pattern, as close to face as possible.
2
Support resistance: 120 - 230 kN/m .
Seismic activity (If necessary) gunite to face, then fully
anticipated grouted steel ropes or yielding tendons,
length > 2.3 m on basic 1 m pattern, as
close to face as possible. Support
2
resistance: 220 - 290 kN/m .
Secondary support
(Typical requirements)
Steel wire mesh integrated with primary
support; optional gunite/shotcrete.
Rope lacing and wire mesh integrated
with primary support. Add integral gunite
in long life tunnels. If necessary,
additional hangingwall support comprising
grouted steel ropes.
Rope lacing and wire mesh integrated
with primary support. Add integral gunite
in long life tunnels. If necessary,
additional hangingwall support comprising
grouted steel ropes.
4.5 Problems with rock mass classification systems

1. Publication of classification systems in early 1970’s greeted

with enthusiasm
• RMR by Bieniawski (1973)
• Q-system by Barton, Lien and Lunde (1974)
2. Appeared to be systematic to design primary support, easy
to apply and have become widely used.
• Sight have been lost of some of their limitations
3. Few paper are now appearing questioning the validity of
the methods for designs (e.g. Palmstrom and Broch, 2007)
1. RQD/Jn does not provide good measure of block size
2. JW/SRF not a meaningful measure of stress acting on rock
4. Pells (2008): Three failures in different tunnelling projects
in Sydney where support was designed using Q
4.6 Recommendations with regards to rock mass
classification systems and bolt designs

1. Provide good “checklists” for collecting rock mass data and

will be useful in the planning stages
2. Be careful of using these systems for final designs
(Palmstrom and Broch, 2007)